Is Sony A7r IV any good for sports photog? Guy at work wants to sell his.

[Max5150]

I currently shoot a lot of sports - indoor ice hockey (low light), soccer, and lacrosse with an A7iii and a A6600. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 GM and a 200-600 G. The A7iii is pretty good in the low light, but the A6600 tracks a bit better. I use the eye autofocus sometimes for portraits. Anyway, a guy at my church is selling a lightly used A7r iv since he is moving to Canon R5, and will give me a pretty good deal ($2k usd maybe a bit less, and it's pretty low # shutter clicks).

Can anyone with some experience shooting sports tell me if this camera can focus/track at least as well as my A7iii. I'd like to have the extra resolution to crop better and just sell my A7iii and the A6600, but at the same time, I'm also concerned about the huge memory usage. Also, I know it's not an A9, so I'm only gonna get 10 frames per second with the e-shutter. I can live with that if it focusses and tracks well.

I'd really welcome any comments. Thanks!!

 

[rsmithsd73]

Google A7RIV and 200-600 for some threads / comments on that combo. Some folks do very well with it, others have issues. That's my go to lens, and I recently switched to Sony. I'm sticking with the A9II and A7RIII largely because of the issues between the RIV and the 200-600. The RIII gives me what I want for landscape, etc.

 

[AlephNull]

Right now there are some big deals on brand-new A7RIV and others in the US - you might want to check those, too.

If you can use mechanical shutter, the A7RIV can be used for sport, but that’s not it’s strongest area. Its RAW files are very large, which can be a pain in the neck if you are trying to get images out in a hurry.

If you have to use silent shutter (unlikely at hockey, I’m sure!), then it’s a bad choice - bad rolling shutter means weird bending effects.

One thing that might be useful - switch it to APS-C mode and you get a 26Mpixel camera with 1.5x reach.

 

[LenRivers]

I currently shoot a lot of sports - indoor ice hockey (low light), soccer, and lacrosse with an A7iii and a A6600. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 GM and a 200-600 G. The A7iii is pretty good in the low light, but the A6600 tracks a bit better. I use the eye autofocus sometimes for portraits. Anyway, a guy at my church is selling a lightly used A7r iv since he is moving to Canon R5, and will give me a pretty good deal ($2k usd maybe a bit less, and it's pretty low # shutter clicks).

Can anyone with some experience shooting sports tell me if this camera can focus/track at least as well as my A7iii. I'd like to have the extra resolution to crop better and just sell my A7iii and the A6600, but at the same time, I'm also concerned about the huge memory usage. Also, I know it's not an A9, so I'm only gonna get 10 frames per second with the e-shutter. I can live with that if it focusses and tracks well.

I'd really welcome any comments. Thanks!!

I can speak from my research. I have shot the A7iii for the past 3 years all is good. The A9ii is the next logical step or go directly to the A1 - steak sauce body.... best of both the A9ii and A7R 4 combined.

I understand the A7R is designed for well lit not really a sports camera. ISO some say tops out at 1600 that they find acceptable. Of course you can argue any time you can an image vs a black screen its a win, and forget the noise.

The FPS on the A7iii is 10 mechanical and I believe the same on the A9ii.

Lots of YouTube reviews on all of this stuff I have been viewing.

I know I like being able to shoot higher ISO and prefer the least noise in an image as possible.

You also have to consider larger file sizes to deal with.

I understand the buffer fills faster with the R camera

IMO with a high MP card I might consider smaller SD cards for the fastest off loading of images

If I have anything mixed up I have been doing lots of research.

For me I have been leaning towards the A9ii over the A7R IV, selling my A7iii. TO that end If I am ready to spend $4500 I have to think really hard if it it worth saving longer for the A1 even if I wont use a lot of the advanced features today.

Sometimes I think it is not a bad idea buying more camera if you are committed to the system and have many years to grow in doing more photography and video when you have such an advanced tool.

That would also give pause to ok, $6500 can also buy you a nice lens if you go with a less expensive body and the budget is still the same...

****

I am about 85% certain I will sell my A7iii, grip and RRS plates I have ...

For sake of being in the USA I actually saved all of the stimulus checks So there is that bucket..... lol ...

 

[Max5150]

Not surprised to hear about rolling shutter. Must take forever to read out the sensor. I'm okay with mechanical shutter.

Being able to crop is the big attraction for me, but if it can't focus on moving objects reliably, then whats the point. I use single point or small center group with AF-C nearly all the time. I think I can deal with the noise with DXO Photolab, but it would be nice to be able to get good jpg straight out of the camera.

 

[Jeff2013]

My 200-600 works great with my A7RIV. It always surprises me that I get about 80% critically sharp shots with BIF. My A9 is obviously better suited for action, but the dynamic range is less (really noticeable on shadow recovery), it has an anti-aliasing filter and just doesn’t yield the fine detail that the RIV does. Therefore, I reach for the RIV most of the time.

I would buy it at $2K. If it doesn’t work for you, you will likely not lose anything if you sell it.

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com

 

[Qqphot]

It'll do 10 fps with mechanical shutter, I think, but I've never seen it autofocus very accurately at that rate. I think it focuses on the first frame in the burst but then keeps the focus the same for the rest of them. Tracking kind of works but in my experience it's going to be "pretty ok" focus, not razor sharp accurate focus.

 

[Impulses]

Right now there are some big deals on brand-new A7RIV and others in the US - you might want to check those, too.

If you can use mechanical shutter, the A7RIV can be used for sport, but that’s not it’s strongest area. Its RAW files are very large, which can be a pain in the neck if you are trying to get images out in a hurry.

If you have to use silent shutter (unlikely at hockey, I’m sure!), then it’s a bad choice - bad rolling shutter means weird bending effects.

One thing that might be useful - switch it to APS-C mode and you get a 26Mpixel camera with 1.5x reach.

Crop mode also doubles the speed of the e-shutter readout rate (tho it's still far too slow for sports) and crucially it lengthens the buffer and/or shortens buffer clear times considerably since it's only capturing the smaller cropped RAW file. The current deals on the A7R IV are the same ones they've been running since late 2020 tho...

 

[Max5150]

I havent really read anything that leads me to believe I'd be happy with this camera in a sports situation. On a tripod doing landscapes, sure, but otherwise, seems like its not an easygoing camera for general photography. Kind of a shme, because the extra pixels sure would come in handy when cropping sports shots.. Please correct me if I'm wring.

 

[aSevenArr]

I currently shoot a lot of sports - indoor ice hockey (low light), soccer, and lacrosse with an A7iii and a A6600. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 GM and a 200-600 G. The A7iii is pretty good in the low light, but the A6600 tracks a bit better. I use the eye autofocus sometimes for portraits. Anyway, a guy at my church is selling a lightly used A7r iv since he is moving to Canon R5, and will give me a pretty good deal ($2k usd maybe a bit less, and it's pretty low # shutter clicks).

Can anyone with some experience shooting sports tell me if this camera can focus/track at least as well as my A7iii. I'd like to have the extra resolution to crop better and just sell my A7iii and the A6600, but at the same time, I'm also concerned about the huge memory usage. Also, I know it's not an A9, so I'm only gonna get 10 frames per second with the e-shutter. I can live with that if it focusses and tracks well.

I'd really welcome any comments. Thanks!!

It certainly would not be my choice for sports. Indoor sports in poor light will soon highlight the ISO noise problems for you.

But honestly it would not be my choice for just about anything really - who needs these massive file sizes and poor low light ISO noise levels?

Even landscape shooters have to deal with low light sometimes unless they always shoot in broad daylight.

 

[Nokiron]

I currently shoot a lot of sports - indoor ice hockey (low light), soccer, and lacrosse with an A7iii and a A6600. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 GM and a 200-600 G. The A7iii is pretty good in the low light, but the A6600 tracks a bit better. I use the eye autofocus sometimes for portraits. Anyway, a guy at my church is selling a lightly used A7r iv since he is moving to Canon R5, and will give me a pretty good deal ($2k usd maybe a bit less, and it's pretty low # shutter clicks).

Can anyone with some experience shooting sports tell me if this camera can focus/track at least as well as my A7iii. I'd like to have the extra resolution to crop better and just sell my A7iii and the A6600, but at the same time, I'm also concerned about the huge memory usage. Also, I know it's not an A9, so I'm only gonna get 10 frames per second with the e-shutter. I can live with that if it focusses and tracks well.

I'd really welcome any comments. Thanks!!

It certainly would not be my choice for sports. Indoor sports in poor light will soon highlight the ISO noise problems for you.

But honestly it would not be my choice for just about anything really - who needs these massive file sizes and poor low light ISO noise levels?

Even landscape shooters have to deal with low light sometimes unless they always shoot in broad daylight.

I struggle to understand this reasoning. The A7RIV has pretty much the same noise level as the A1 and A9. Those don't have "noise problems", they are best in class?

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-1,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4,Sony%20ILCE-9
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5_14,Sony%20ILCE-1_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4_14

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7-ii-review

At the highest ISO values, the Nikon Z7 II pulls ahead of Panasonic handily with respect to noise levels, outstrips the Canon EOS R5 by a hair and looks to be pretty much neck-and-neck with the Sony a7R IV. But really, all cameras look solid at the more realistic ISO values that you might consider shooting at.

I agree that it's probably not the best choice for sports. But the noise is not the issue, never has been.

Edit: Had the wrong link to photonstophotos

 

[Impulses]

I currently shoot a lot of sports - indoor ice hockey (low light), soccer, and lacrosse with an A7iii and a A6600. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 GM and a 200-600 G. The A7iii is pretty good in the low light, but the A6600 tracks a bit better. I use the eye autofocus sometimes for portraits. Anyway, a guy at my church is selling a lightly used A7r iv since he is moving to Canon R5, and will give me a pretty good deal ($2k usd maybe a bit less, and it's pretty low # shutter clicks).

Can anyone with some experience shooting sports tell me if this camera can focus/track at least as well as my A7iii. I'd like to have the extra resolution to crop better and just sell my A7iii and the A6600, but at the same time, I'm also concerned about the huge memory usage. Also, I know it's not an A9, so I'm only gonna get 10 frames per second with the e-shutter. I can live with that if it focusses and tracks well.

I'd really welcome any comments. Thanks!!

It certainly would not be my choice for sports. Indoor sports in poor light will soon highlight the ISO noise problems for you.

But honestly it would not be my choice for just about anything really - who needs these massive file sizes and poor low light ISO noise levels?

Even landscape shooters have to deal with low light sometimes unless they always shoot in broad daylight.

I struggle to understand this reasoning. The A7RIV has pretty much the same noise level as the A1 and A9. Those don't have "noise problems", they are best in class?

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-1,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4,Sony%20ILCE-9https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5_14,Sony%20ILCE-1_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4_14

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7-ii-review

At the highest ISO values, the Nikon Z7 II pulls ahead of Panasonic handily with respect to noise levels, outstrips the Canon EOS R5 by a hair and looks to be pretty much neck-and-neck with the Sony a7R IV. But really, all cameras look solid at the more realistic ISO values that you might consider shooting at.

I agree that it's probably not the best choice for sports. But the noise is not the issue, never has been.

Edit: Had the wrong link to photonstophotos

Very often those complaining about the noise and/or pointing at the file size are not those that actually own or shoot one...

 

[Max5150]

The Sony A7R iv pixel size and density are a little tighter than an APS-C sensor. In fact, very close to the X-trans sensor in the Fuji XT-4. Ironically, people seem to love the XT-4 IQ. So I'm not really concerned about the additional noise. I'm sure I can deal with it. I'm more concerned about focus, tracking, and lower light in sporting situations. The high resolution sensor in low light with fast moving subjects may also give give rise to motion blur, so that's a concern. I don't want to be shotting at iso 10,000 all thime to keep my shutter speed up.

Also, I have the Sony 200-600mm G lens and even Mark Smith, an obviously very accomplished birder, says he gave up on the A7R iv with the 200-600mm G. So who knows.

 

[rsmithsd73]

another compromise option might be to wait to see what the A7IV looks like later this year. Rumored 30+MP sensor and great AF. Not quite A1 "best of both worlds" but a solid camera I'm sure.

 

[Impulses]

The Sony A7R iv pixel size and density are a little tighter than an APS-C sensor. In fact, very close to the X-trans sensor in the Fuji XT-4. Ironically, people seem to love the XT-4 IQ. So I'm not really concerned about the additional noise. I'm sure I can deal with it. I'm more concerned about focus, tracking, and lower light in sporting situations. The high resolution sensor in low light with fast moving subjects may also give give rise to motion blur, so that's a concern. I don't want to be shotting at iso 10,000 all thime to keep my shutter speed up.

Also, I have the Sony 200-600mm G lens and even Mark Smith, an obviously very accomplished birder, says he gave up on the A7R iv with the 200-600mm G. So who knows.

Those are valid concerns, I didn't mean to thread crap, the 200-600 situation from the outside looking in does look like an endemic issue... I'm just a little tired of hearing the other complaints I was poking fun at. Seeing people rationalize away the resolution advantage for landscapes is just amusing.

 

[Max5150]

No worries. I didn't think your comment was off base at all. We're talking DPReview here!

 

[Max5150]

another compromise option might be to wait to see what the A7IV looks like later this year. Rumored 30+MP sensor and great AF. Not quite A1 "best of both worlds" but a solid camera I'm sure.

Better be a big leap for Sony in a lot of ways because the next model cycle from Canon may get my business.

 

[pollup]

The Sony A7R iv pixel size and density are a little tighter than an APS-C sensor. In fact, very close to the X-trans sensor in the Fuji XT-4. Ironically, people seem to love the XT-4 IQ. So I'm not really concerned about the additional noise. I'm sure I can deal with it. I'm more concerned about focus, tracking, and lower light in sporting situations.

The high resolution sensor in low light with fast moving subjects may also give give rise to motion blur, so that's a concern. I don't want to be shotting at iso 10,000 all thime to keep my shutter speed up.

This is only true if you crop or view the full 61MP images. If you don't crop and output to 26MP or lower, then you don't need to increase the shutter speed.

Motion blur is always the same for all cameras, the only difference is that 61MP lets you zoom in more on that blur.

Also, I have the Sony 200-600mm G lens and even Mark Smith, an obviously very accomplished birder, says he gave up on the A7R iv with the 200-600mm G. So who knows.

 

[Johann Kruger]

I'm from the generation that thinks the Nikon F2 Photomic FTN is great for basketball, Judo, baseball, and cross country. This was my first camera I used at sports gigs that I bought new when it first came out. All I can say is I've used the Sony A7R4 and 400/2.8 at sporting events and it works great. It doesn't pan as fast as the A92 though.

 

[Max5150]

Interesting.

Got a lot of miles out of my first camera, an Ashi Pentax S1. When the Nikon FE came out I splashed out for the whole kit with a 28, 50, and 135. Was a Nikon man until I got my A7iii. Those Ai-s lenses are still phenomenal.